1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]The emergent properties which arise out of the physical substrate, as bbarr puts it, intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration, as you put it, cannot be greater than the sum of its parts within a closed system, scientifically speaking.
[b]Your underlying claim (taking ethics as simply an example) seems to be that such natural processes cannot give rise to a consciousness that is capable of intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration...i.e., that such a consciousness must have a supernatural source. But unless you can provide further argument, you are merely being circul r ethics cannot escape absurdity's intellectual and spiritual fallout, as it were.
I’m not at all sure that’s correct, Epi. Even from a very mechanistic viewpoint, movement is not a “part” of a car, for a crude example. Whether the complex of processes associated with consciousness arise from an act of God, or from natural development, those processes work through the physical system—unless you want to posit consciousness as a non-physical substance itself, as a kind of ghost in the machine. Or that the neuro-physiolgical activities of the brain simply reflect the channeling of some exoteric consciousness, like my typing onto this keyboard.
I personally believe that meaning doesn't need to be "made" but can be discovered, and that nobody needs to tell us how to behave because that can be discovered as well, regardless of whether one posits a Creator or not.
Let me try another tack. Since I do not have the formal philosophical language that bbarr and LemonJello do (except for what I’ve picked up along the way), let me offer an analogy that you and I are both familiar with: exegesis.
Neither scripture nor life are “self-interpreting” (whatever that could possibly mean). We see a plethora of exegetical approaches, based on various hermeneutical ideas, leading to a variety of results. We see allegorical applications, form criticism, historical criticism, midrash, mythology, as well as literalism. And so on. The interpretive results depend on how we apply the hermeneutical tools that we do (including those derived from spiritual experience).
I take an exegetical approach to the circumstances and existential questions of my own life. In so doing, I may discover many things—but the meaning of those discoveries is always subject to the process of deciphering (the grammar/syntax metaphor) and interpreting. And I can escape neither the fact nor the responsibility by claiming that my interpretations (or someone else’s) are not really interpretations. That does not mean that I label such as “mere” interpretations, or casual opinions, or the like. There is an epistemic responsibility; and part of that responsibility is to acknowledge my participation in the project; and part of it is to keep my epistemology separate from my aesthetics, though the story of my exegetical life is woven of both.
I think Camus and Kierkegaard, as well as Tolstoy, express quite well what it is I'm referring to by that term. I'm asserting that a secular ethics cannot escape absurdity's intellectual and spiritual fallout, as it were.
You are presuming that there is an escape from Camus’ Absurd. (Interestingly, his The Myth of Sisyphus tackles head-on the (im)morality of suicide.) You are presuming that without such an escape, life has no significance and that we cannot reach moral/ethical conclusions. You are presuming that a meaning that is not simply disclosed, or one that is subject to our own interpretive (and creative) participation, is no meaning at all. At least it seems that you are presuming these things.
From the very first time we debated, Epi, your stuck-point (I can’t at the moment think of a better word; I don’t mean it pejoratively) seems to be a desire for a metaphysical certainty that cannot be undermined by either your own mind, or contra-indicative discoveries about the world. I think, with Camus, that such a certainty is a will-o-the wisp (I’m not even sure about its desirability, but that’s another matter). Instead of making a decision of faith (or leap of faith) in the face of uncertainty, you want faith to provide you with—not conviction, but—that certainty.
Now, as I have indicated before, I use the word “faith” (when I use it at all) in a different way. But even used in the conventional way—or Kierkegaard’s, for that matter—there is no such thing as a strictly riskless faith. Not for me, not for you, not for anybody. As soon as we attempt to speak of the ineffable, to interpret it—and to place our trust in those interpretations!—we bear a risk. As I have also said before, all of our conceptualization and language about the ineffable can be either iconic or idolatrous, Buddhist talk as well as Christian talk, mine as well as yours. And iconic language points to another kind of leap. . .
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI’m not at all sure that’s correct, Epi. Even from a very mechanistic viewpoint, movement is not a “part” of a car, for a crude example. Whether the complex of processes associated with consciousness arise from an act of God, or from natural development, those processes work through the physical system—unless you want to posit consciousness as a non-physical substance itself, as a kind of ghost in the machine. Or that the neuro-physiolgical activities of the brain simply reflect the channeling of some exoteric consciousness, like my typing onto this keyboard.
The emergent properties which arise out of the physical substrate, as bbarr puts it, intentionality, wonder, meaning-making, moral consideration, as you put it, cannot be greater than the sum of its parts within a closed system, scientifically speaking.
I’m not at all sure that’s correct, Epi. Even from a very mechanistic viewpoint, movement i ian talk, mine as well as yours. And iconic language points to another kind of leap. . .[/b]
Consider a tree from an objective standpoint, having no observer. Scientifically speaking it is a collection of particles manifesting different properties, occupying a rigid yet essentially fluid form. Defined scientifically, the same could be said about ideas, wonder, intentionality, meaning-making, virtue, etc. These esoteric constructs are likewise physical properties and in themselves devoid of any inherent meaning. The genius of attributing right and wrong, therefore, can only be inferred and appreciated (or known) subjectively, while the vacuum of existence, objectively speaking, simultaneously strips right and wrong of its meaning. If we start from the premise that there is no God, then we must infer that the universe is accidental and that 'goodness' or 'badness' can be nothing more than holographic illusions.
I guess at bottom my contention is that secularism and its intellectual derivatives may work within their own propositional universes, but in the real world secular ethics collapses under the weight of its own assumptions (the problem of absurdity as evidence). If we start from the premise that God exists (all talk of scriptural reliability aside), and that He is a Spirit Who transcends the purely physical, and we, as His creatures, were also created with a spirit which transcends the purely physical, thereby allowing us the capability of communion with Him, only then would any description of Nature be truly ancillary to right and wrong, goodness or badness. Because the particles which make up our existence would serve for the greater purpose of facilitating consciousness and the will, evidenced by the intuition of conscience. Mind over matter, spirit over mind, etc.
Secularism introduces more problems than it solves, in my opinion. The principle of Ockham's razor compels me to the simpler answer. (I'm sure this is a horrible argument, but I can't be any more sincere about my own intuition.)
You are presuming that there is an escape from Camus’ Absurd.
Definitely! Thank God, there is an escape from the absurd in Jesus Christ.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to reach moral/ethical conclusions in the midst of the absurd, nor that those conclusions can't have some basis in reality (which they may often have), what I am saying is simply that secularism is a denial of a significant portion, to put it mildly, of Reality; that is, a denial of God. Secular ethics, as a system of thought which denies that portion of reality with which it has to do, i.e. God, is therefore inherently flawed. I think this should bear itself out over time, in the multiplication of tomes devoted to propping up secular ethics itself, and in the psychological uncertainty of its adherents. By contrast, the unpretentious, faithful and childlike will continue to live boldly and happily in Christ.
From the very first time we debated, Epi, your stuck-point (I can’t at the moment think of a better word; I don’t mean it pejoratively) seems to be a desire for a metaphysical certainty that cannot be undermined by either your own mind, or contra-indicative discoveries about the world. I think, with Camus, that such a certainty is a will-o-the wisp (I’m not even sure about its desirability, but that’s another matter).
Of course, you are right, but it makes for some interesting discussion, eh? 🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI brought up the distinction because it shows that your claims about the commitments of secularism are false. You suppose necessary implications that just don't exist: again, even if were true that science points to nothing beyond the physical; even if some version of physicalism were true; that doesn't have ethical implications.
Normative ethics cannot address the existential dilemma which secularism creates. And merely understanding the distinction between descriptive and normative doesn't solve the problem either.
I do not in any way deny that there is a "dilemma" of sorts regarding simply existing as part of a normative community -- I think it's well expressed in the Camusian concept of the "absurd". Some of us wish to try to understand the dilemma for exactly what it is, elusive as it may be. We find meaning and happiness even, and especially, in the continued preservation of that confrontation. Now, if you and Tolstoy feel the need to sweep it under the proverbial rug; if you wish to take refuge in your "irrational knowledge", as Tolstoy himself calls it; if you wish to live with appeal and commit what Camus calls "philosophical suicide"; if the "arrest of life" and feelings of the absurd just make it such that you feel, as Tolstoy did, that you "cannot live" in a god-less world; if all these things threaten your ability to live with passion and conviction; then do what you feel you need to do. But quit pretending like my only option, out of practical necessity, is to follow you into your little hut of "irrational knowledge" (in keeping with the premise that prompted this thread, you'll have better chances of convincing me if you offer me evidential reasons for the truth of your religion -- yes, along the lines of "your" earlier argument that you copied and pasted).
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am not ignoring any implications. You and epi are projecting implications where there are none. If it comes at the ushering of scientific findings (which is the assumption), then "accidental" would not here be a normative term. It would have to be clearly defined, but I guess it would presumably relate descriptively to the process(es) by which the "particles" came together into a collection.
Your lack of concern is ill-founded. Whether you choose to ignore the implications or not does nothing to change the implications. No matter what sense of the word is used, accident brings more freight with it than you are willing to oblige.
Whether in law or everyday common usage, an accident infers lack of expectation, unfortunate event, chance, or ...[text shortened]... ause (which is not really a cause, but that's something else altogether), no value is inherent.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes, I think I can relate to those feelings and sensations you describe -- sometimes I sneeze or cough or have tingling sensations, for example. Why in the world, when one arises, should I consider it to be God-indicating?
I never said the experiment was to be a rigidly scientific one . I have only claimed that God's presence can be known and experienced by individuals. My guess is that you were looking for something too much instead of just allowing the process to unfold. You were unlikely to come across much given the short amount of time you gave to it but even so the ...[text shortened]... se are very subjective phenomena ( and these are just a few) but can you relate to any of them?
2 edits
Now let me pose a pragmatic counter-question (counter to my own arguments here, perhaps, anyway).
I have in the course of my life known a good number of 12-step persons (mostly AA), and a number of such people that I would call “mature” in the program—sober for a good many years (“sober”, that is, vis-à-vis whatever the addictive issue was, in terms of the specific 12-step program, whether a physical addiction or not), and having shed any dogmatism about the program that people with only a short period of sobriety sometimes seem to show (perhaps a typical “conversion” syndrome). Nevertheless, I am talking about people who have worked and lived the program for, say, 10-30 years, who still (so far as I know) do.
I will add that I was in such a program for some years. Although I later found another path, I have no criticisms of that particular program—quite the contrary, it was profoundly helpful. I only say that so that you understand that I know the steps (not that I can speak with a great deal of “expertise”, only some intimate familiarity), and have spent some years working them in my daily existence. That “another path” I do not say is better, simply another, that also seems to work for me (not that the 12-step approach has not been also woven into how I “walkabout” this existence).
Now, steps 2 and 3 refer to coming to believe in a “higher power”, and turning the care of one’s life over to that power. Despite the general use of the “G word,” I have yet to meet a 12-step sponsor who would insist that one has to understand that in a theistic sense. Personally, I prefer the phrase “deeper power,” and was never critiqued on that.
The point is that 12-step programs represent a spiritual path whose justification is solely cast in pragmatic terms, not only with regard to specific addiction, but with regard to such things as living in serenity, joy, harmony, etc.—what has seemed clear to me as a “eudaimonic” life. (Some of the senior sponsors I have met have seemed as spiritually wise as any guru, priest or roshi.) But the belief formation that is part of the program seems to be strictly pragmatic in non-trivial ways. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a case where their offer of “salvation” is cast in any other terms but, “If you take this path, it can lead to a life of sobriety, sanity, serenity and joy”. (Again, I stress that I am using “sobriety” in a very broad sense.)
If you ask people in the program if they believe in a higher power (however they define that power), they will answer, “Yes.” If you ask them for reasons, you will likely get strictly pragmatic ones, whether in terms of sobriety, health or spirituality.
I do not see why such pragmatic grounds for belief ought to be considered in any way invalid; in the hurly-burly of daily existence, I would take such pragmatics to be decisive.
How does such a system fit into this discussion?
EDIT: I just read the Op again, and realized that bbarr distinguished between “pragmatic” and “evidentiary”. Neverthless, I’ll let the question stand, since part of it has to do with belief in a “higher power” for which there may be no evidence whatsoever aside from the pragmatic effects of such a belief in one’s life.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSome of us wish to try to understand the dilemma for exactly what it is, elusive as it may be. We find meaning and happiness even, and especially, in the continued preservation of that confrontation.
I brought up the distinction because it shows that your claims about the commitments of secularism are false. You suppose necessary implications that just don't exist: again, even if were true that science points to nothing beyond the physical; even if some version of physicalism were true; that doesn't have ethical implications.
I do not in any way d yes, along the lines of "your" earlier argument that you copied and pasted).
Most of the world lives there, too, my friend. On the corner of Despair and Absurdity. I think it's typical of philosophers, after they accurately diagnose the problem at the heart of the human condition, to become so infatuated with it that they forget to search for the solution. I've lived there myself for many years, it was tough to let go of that life because my pride would get in the way, but now I'm glad I'm whole in Christ Jesus.
"If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise" (1 Cor 3:18).
(in keeping with the premise that prompted this thread, you'll have better chances of convincing me if you offer me evidential reasons for the truth of your religion -- yes, along the lines of "your" earlier argument that you copied and pasted).
The copy and pasted section is the standard argument for trust in scripture and the divinity of Christ. Whereas my argument followed from a discussion with bbarr, who mentioned that the testimony of others whom one justifiably trusts is a legitimate grounds for belief formation. And the New Testament is exactly that, so you can stop calling my beliefs irrational any time now, thanks. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasJust so you know, my friend, I do not live on the corner of Despair. If you pair Camusian absurdity with despair, you’ve made a mistake.
[b]Some of us wish to try to understand the dilemma for exactly what it is, elusive as it may be. We find meaning and happiness even, and especially, in the continued preservation of that confrontation.
Most of the world lives there, too, my friend. On the corner of Despair and Absurdity. I think it's typical of philosophers, after they accurat is exactly that, so you can stop calling my beliefs irrational any time now, thanks. 🙂[/b]
(Good God! [euphemism. 😉 ] I just realized, though, it’s been almost a decade since I last experienced any feelings of despair! Truly.)
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIf you ask people in the program if they believe in a higher power (however they define that power), they will answer, “Yes.” If you ask them for reasons, you will likely get strictly pragmatic ones, whether in terms of sobriety, health or spirituality.
Now let me pose a pragmatic counter-question (counter to my own arguments here, perhaps, anyway).
I have in the course of my life known a good number of 12-step persons (mostly AA), and a number of such people that I would call “mature” in the program—sober for a good many years (“sober”, that is, vis-à-vis whatever the addictive issue was, in terms of th ...[text shortened]... e may be no evidence whatsoever aside from the pragmatic effects of such a belief in one’s life.
I agree (I know from experience) that there are many believers that, upon being asked to provide reasons for their belief, will only cite pragmatic considerations. But, that one fails to provide epistemic reasons for their belief when questioned doesn't imply that the belief formation proceeded in the absence of such considerations; that they only offer pragmatic considerations when questioned doesn't mean the belief formation was based on pragmatic considerations. Perhaps it is difficult for them to articulate the considerations that actually formed the belief, or perhaps they think that, for whatever reason, the offering of pragmatic reasons is the best way to witness or justify their belief when questioned.
I think there may be several reasonable possibilities here to explain this phenomenon without having to reject that the belief formation itself was based on epistemic, and not pragmatic, reasons. For example, consider this scenario: suppose one in need of rehabilitation enters such a program that, as you say, is solely cast in pragmatic terms. One of its steps is the one you describe: the turning over care of his life to some supposed higher power. This higher power, they tell him, will thereby guide the recovery. Then suppose he does start to recover with the program, and his quality of life improves dramatically. It's very possible that he would take the mere occurrence of his recovery as good evidence for the existence of the higher power, even though objectively that would hardly constitute good abductive reasoning considering that there are probably much more likely explanations for the recovery (for example, his own determination and resolve, the constant support of others in the program, the better living practices that accompany the program, combinations of these, etc. -- none of which require the higher power hypothesis). This seems to me to be the essence of knightmeister's "experiment": to work it basically requires some sort of abductive misfiring; it requires one to hypothetically posit the existence of the higher power and then to start interpreting certain subsequent changes in their life or just ordinary occurrences viewed in new light as confirming evidence for the hypothesis -- despite the fact that, objectively, these are nothing of the sort. Their belief can continue to be bolstered in many ways from then on. In this case, the person probably will give you only pragmatic reasons for their belief because they will be focused on how the higher power has transformed them through experiences. But the point remains that the deliberative formation of the belief relied on considerations that they took to bear on the truth of the hypothesis (and not pragmatic considerations), however misguided they may or may not have been in that regard. What do you think about this?
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloConsider a person who climbs out of 'rock bottom' and begins with the utmost determination, but who only uses the aspects of the program which do not require the surrender to a higher power, i.e., the support of others, taking care of oneself, better living conditions, etc. - has this ever been enough to truly deliver an alcoholic from the depths of addiction?
[b]If you ask people in the program if they believe in a higher power (however they define that power), they will answer, “Yes.” If you ask them for reasons, you will likely get strictly pragmatic ones, whether in terms of sobriety, health or spirituality.
I agree (I know from experience) that there are many believers that, upon being asked ver misguided they may or may not have been in that regard. What do you think about this?[/b]
BTW, the abductive misfiring you are referring to is faith. Faith that your rational faculties are not going to abandon you simply because you abandon them for a while. 🙂
I wonder, is life really meant to be lived perfectly rationally? Could one ever discover anything really surprising living that way? Hmmm...
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, I have some problem with that analysis, I guess. And I think it’s analogous to a placebo effect. In this case, it would be rather like telling someone that their healing has been the result of a placebo effect, having them shrug, and continue taking the placebo anyway, with continuing improvement. (And I think it is important to see the 12-step programs in terms of a continuing spiritual journey, if for no other reason than because that’s how longstanding participants describe it.)
[b]If you ask people in the program if they believe in a higher power (however they define that power), they will answer, “Yes.” If you ask them for reasons, you will likely get strictly pragmatic ones, whether in terms of sobriety, health or spirituality.
I agree (I know from experience) that there are many believers that, upon being asked ...[text shortened]... ver misguided they may or may not have been in that regard. What do you think about this?[/b]
Now, the problem I have with your analysis is not so much the content as it is that word “misguided.” Could you tell someone with an addiction who is considering a 12-step program that it is misguided? (I’m not talking about the ethical implications of telling them that; I’m more interested in relevancy here.) Is the prescription of a placebo always “misguided”? I doubt it.
The interesting thing about this particular case, I think, is the conjunction of the higher-power concept and tangible, life-long results (as opposed to after-life salvationism). There is apparently some controversy over the statistical studies of 12-step programs; but my knowledge is only of those who would credit it as a valid life-saving and life-enhancing way to live.
Another interesting thing, in my experience, is that these guys—that is, 12-step people I have known who have a certain maturity in the program—would likely feel no need to argue with your analysis. “If it works for you; this is what works for me.” As I think about it (and I’m really just thinking out loud now), the most “realized” individuals that I have personally known (a small group that, to be sure), with the exception of one or two, have come out of that paradigm. That paradigm is their “effective means”, and part of that has to do with the beliefs that they have formed along the way.
Another jigsaw-puzzle piece here: once many years ago, when I had some concern about my own developing drinking habits, I was at a cocktails-before-dinner type of affair, and a particular AA guy that I knew brought me a (alcoholic) drink. Maybe you have to imagine the situation a bit here. But I knew that guy—and I knew in that moment that I was not an alcoholic: I knew it because I knew that he knew it. I knew that guy for about another 15 years maybe. He was as much a roshi as any Zen master, but his paradigm was not Zen Buddhism, but AA.
________________________________
I don’t know, LJ. The more I try to mount large arguments here anymore, the more I realize that my own perspective—patchwork as it is—gets simpler and simpler and simpler. I guess a couple of years ago—just before I took a long break from here—you were one of the ones who understood my reference to just the simple bliss of being. I am as prone as anyone to lose sight of that, as I wander in the maya-world. And that is the thing: to live that. And I have known people who learned to live that in the context of (various) belief systems that are not mine. On the other hand, my own “effective means” have changed from time to time, and may change again.
The “moon,” LJ, the moon. The music and the moon. All the questions, all the argument, all the analysis: they either point to that or they are just playing in maya (which, of course, is okay as long as one is aware of the play).
All I can do, in my clumsy way, is keep trying to point to that. From this way, from that way: it doesn’t matter.
Tired, tired: far too many words in the past few months. More words: more errors.
“Behind the makings of the mind...”
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI'm not trying to say that I think such a program is "misguided" in the sense that I would deter one from participating if it is working for them (working in the sense of bringing about recovery). If such a program were to improve their quality of life, enhance their personal relationships, better their prospects of living characteristically free from pain and suffering, etc., I think that would be a great thing regardless of whether they thought God guided the recovery or not. But if one tells me that some divine agent God guided their recovery, I do think their ascription of explanation for the recovery is defective. This is all I meant when I used "misguided".
Well, I have some problem with that analysis, I guess. And I think it’s analogous to a placebo effect. In this case, it would be rather like telling someone that their healing has been the result of a placebo effect, having them shrug, and continue taking the placebo anyway, with continuing improvement. (And I think it is important to see the 12-step prog ...[text shortened]... words in the past few months. More words: more errors.
“Behind the makings of the mind...”
I was not trying to say something about the efficacy or relevancy of such a program with respect to its project ends. The question of the efficacy of the higher-power-step would be an interesting one, but it's not something I was trying to comment on there. At the end of the day, I do think of course it would be better for one to go through a recovery program, do well, and then also accurately identify the factors for his doing well (which is not what happens, in my estimation, when one chalks it up to some divine agent); and I do not think some higher-power-step is in any way necessary for a healthy recovery program. But, again, I was not trying to address those issues.
Really, I was just trying to say the following. Suppose you have one who goes through such a program and comes to believe through his recovery in this higher power. From the fact that he subsequently only offers pragmatic considerations for this belief (let's suppose this is the case), it doesn't necessarily follow that the formation of the belief was based on pragmatic considerations. Neither does it follow from the fact that the whole program itself is "cast in pragmatic terms" as you say. I was just trying to explain why I think it's still the case that the formation of the belief at bottom relies on considerations that he thinks bears on the truth of the proposition -- and not pragmatic considerations. I'm just thinking aloud here, I think it's an interesting question. Of course, you and Hafiz are right, I should pick up my instrument once again. And I do play a mean guitar. 🙂